Gibson v. Kroha

W.D. Washington

Gibson v. Kroha

DecidedApril 1, 2020

Docket3:17-cv-05187

StatusUnknown

This text of Gibson v. Kroha (Gibson v. Kroha) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gibson v. Kroha, (W.D. Wash. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 PATRICK K. GIBSON, CASE NO. 3:17-CV-5187-RBL-DWC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 v. SUPPLEMENT 13 EDITH KROHA, 14 Defendant.

15 This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 12, 2019, 16 the Ninth Circuit remanded to this Court Plaintiff Patrick Gibson’s claim against Defendant 17 Edith Kroha alleging constitutionally inadequate medical care. Dkt. 61, 66. Pending before the 18 Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement the Record. Dkt. 88.1 19 On February 25, 2020, Plaintiff filed the Motion requesting permission to supplement the 20 record with medical request and accident report forms arising from an unrelated injury. Dkt. 88. 21 22

23 1 Also pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, which is ready for the 24 Court’s consideration on April 17, 2020. Dkt. 87. 1 Defendant filed a Response requesting the Court deny the Motion because the documents 2 Plaintiff seeks to include in the record are unrelated to the claim in this case. Dkt. 92. 3 The Court cannot rely on irrelevant facts when deciding issues in a case. See Gaub v. 4 Prof'l Hosp. Supply, Inc., 845 F. Supp. 2d 1118, 1128 (D. Idaho 2012). However, striking

5 irrelevant evidence from the record would be duplicative of the summary judgment standard. See 6 Burch v. Regents of University of California, 433 F.Supp.2d 1110, 1119–20 (E.D. Cal. 2006). 7 Therefore, to ensure Plaintiff is able to fully develop the record, the Court grants Plaintiff’s 8 Motion to Supplement (Dkt. 88). However, as the Court has previously explained, the Court will 9 consider only evidence which is material to the allegations in the Complaint in ruling on 10 motions, including any motions for summary judgment. 11 Dated this 1st day of April, 2020. 12 A 13 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 PATRICK K. GIBSON, CASE NO. 3:17-CV-5187-RBL-DWC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 v. SUPPLEMENT 13 EDITH KROHA, 14 Defendant.

15 This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 12, 2019, 16 the Ninth Circuit remanded to this Court Plaintiff Patrick Gibson’s claim against Defendant 17 Edith Kroha alleging constitutionally inadequate medical care. Dkt. 61, 66. Pending before the 18 Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement the Record. Dkt. 88.1 19 On February 25, 2020, Plaintiff filed the Motion requesting permission to supplement the 20 record with medical request and accident report forms arising from an unrelated injury. Dkt. 88. 21 22

23 1 Also pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, which is ready for the 24 Court’s consideration on April 17, 2020. Dkt. 87. 1 Defendant filed a Response requesting the Court deny the Motion because the documents 2 Plaintiff seeks to include in the record are unrelated to the claim in this case. Dkt. 92. 3 The Court cannot rely on irrelevant facts when deciding issues in a case. See Gaub v. 4 Prof'l Hosp. Supply, Inc., 845 F. Supp. 2d 1118, 1128 (D. Idaho 2012). However, striking

5 irrelevant evidence from the record would be duplicative of the summary judgment standard. See 6 Burch v. Regents of University of California, 433 F.Supp.2d 1110, 1119–20 (E.D. Cal. 2006). 7 Therefore, to ensure Plaintiff is able to fully develop the record, the Court grants Plaintiff’s 8 Motion to Supplement (Dkt. 88). However, as the Court has previously explained, the Court will 9 consider only evidence which is material to the allegations in the Complaint in ruling on 10 motions, including any motions for summary judgment. 11 Dated this 1st day of April, 2020. 12 A 13 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gibson v. Kroha, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibson-v-kroha-wawd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack